He was arrested in Spain for running a business in Costa Rica. How exactly does the US have even the slightest jurisdiction to prosecute him?
Most likely some of his customers where American. That's how it usually works. People have also been arrested and convicted in the U.S. for running offshore Internet casinos that took bets from Americans. A marijuana seller in Canada was sentenced to 5 years in a U.S. prison because some of his customers were American. The moral of the story: if you want to run a business that violates U.S. law, don't do business with Americans!
Next, ship a bicycle fender to a Houston, Texas, address. The law says you pay a higher tax rate if there is a public bus stop on your block. What tax rate do you charge?
Are you sure that's sales tax and not property tax? That doesn't make sense. If I'm in Houston and I go into a McDonald's and buy a milkshake, will the cashier ask me if there's a bus stop on the street where I live and if so charge me a higher rate of tax on that milkshake? Or does it only apply to bicycle fenders?
The Supreme Court has ruled that a suspect cannot be compelled to provide the combination to a lock, so I don't see how this is significantly different.
Do you have a citation for that? I'm not saying you're wrong, I've just never heard of this case and I would be very interested in looking it up and reading the decision.
Does this require that service providers retain that information, or does it just require that they turn it over if they have it? The law looks pretty broad, covering not only ISPs but any "remote computing service". Does that mean that anonymous services can no longer be offered? Does it require ISPs to retain logs of IP address assignments permanently?
Why does it have to be either "left wing" or "right wing" books that win? Why not just choose good books, regardless of politics? I think a feature of some of the best books written is the politics is left up to the reader. Is the Lord of the Rings left-wing or right-wing? I've seen commentaries taking both positions.
If a homeowner can own guns, not lock them up and then they get taken and used in a crime, the homeowner can be held accountable.
If a hacking company has exploits, doesnt lock them up properly, they get taken and used in a crime, can the hacking company be held responsible?
A better gun analogy would be you design a gun which can be manufactured on a 3D printer and leave the plans for the gun unprotected on your server. Someone downloads the plans, makes the gun on their 3D printer and uses the gun to commit a crime. Can the designer who didn't protect the plans adequately be held liable? I really don't know one way or the other, but I think it's a better analogy.
If I'm not mistaken, the LHC has been publicly funded, so these data should have been public to start with. Anything else is bs.
It's standard practice in experimental particle physics to give those who put the time and effort into designing, building, and running the experiment the first chance to analyze the data and publish results. After that, it's not unusual to release the raw data publicly. Otherwise, there'd really be no incentive to do the work, since someone else could swoop in and publish results without having contributed to producing the data.
Not true. Saying "all passengers are on board" when there are zero passengers is a vacuously true statement, but a vacuously true statement is still true.
You're deliberately misstating what he said. What he said is that as long as companies continue to create devices designed to defeat LEO, we're setting ourselves up to lose horribly. It's much better to design a legal system that allows both devices and society a reasonable level of security.
But this very statement seems to suggest a belief that in order for a society to be secure, the devices can't be. What is a "reasonable level of security" for a device? The maximum technology allows, or something else?
It feels like we're coming to a head here with regards to the government and technology. At some point, we will have to find a reasonable solution to the problem of something which is strong enough for us, but in some way allows the government (with an appropriate warrant) to access data.
This statement seems to be based on a common misinterpretation of what a warrant is. Search warrants allow the police to search for things, but they do not necessarily guarantee that they will find what they're looking for, and most importantly, the existence of warrants does NOT incur an obligation on the public to live their day-to-day lives in such a way that future searches (with warrants) will be successful. Requiring computer users to use weakened or backdoored software for the simple reason that a warrant might be issued at some future time turns the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution entirely on its head
The problem is the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee the right of the people to possess any and all armaments. Try storing nuclear weapons in your basement, for example. I think the 1st Amendment provides much greater protection from laws such as this. Software, and specifically source code, has been classified as protected speech by some courts, so encryption software might receive some protection on those grounds.
I think we can all agree that consumption of that intellectual property without consent is theft
No, it's not theft, it's copyright violation. There's no good reason to confuse the two concepts.
Wrong again. "Consumption of intellectual property without consent" isn't copyright violation. Copying intellectual property without consent is. Or to be more precise: copying copyrighted material without consent is copyright violation.
It's not an issue of morality; it's an issue of legality. Prostitution is illegal in most states.
Vigilantism is illegal in most states too.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Vigilantism is when people take the law into their own hands and try to punish people themselves. All this guy is doing is gathering evidence and turning it over to the police. That's not illegal.
... to force your morality unto everyone else. Of course he's proud of his "successes."
It's not an issue of morality; it's an issue of legality. Prostitution is illegal in most states. If you disagree with the law, you can write to your state representative and suggest he/she vote to change the law. That doesn't mean you get to disobey it. This drone operator was not breaking any laws. The people he caught were.
Although obesity may seem like a problem in developed countries, the fact that there are more obese people than underweight people in the world means that starvation is much less of a problem than it used to be. We now have enough food to feed the world. This is a good thing. Better to be a bit chubby than die of starvation which in some parts of the world, people used to do.
This proposed law gets it half right. I'd have no problem with a law that prohibited using electronic devices while crossing streets. But there is no reason to prohibit such activity while walking on public sidewalks. Yes, you might run the risk of bumping into somebody, and if you walk so carelessly as to do that, you might reasonably be charged with creating a public nuisance, but that sort of careless walking doesn't pose nearly the same danger as crossing roads while distracted, and it is absurd to put them in the same category. Extending jaywalking laws to cover walking on the sidewalk goes way too far in restricting people's freedoms. Remember, texting or talking on a cellphone is a means of communication, and communication is an essential component of the First Amendment. Therefore, restrictions on communication should be imposed only when necessary and then such restrictions should be narrowly tailored to accomplish those objectives.
That's the problem you have with this? The problem that I have is that someone is being accused of something he supposedly did outside the U.S. but is being forcibly brought to the U.S.
That's called extradition, and extradition treaties have existed for hundreds of years. It's nothing new. Would you rather live in a world with no extradition treaties, where all a criminal had to do was make it across the border, or launch his attacks from the other side of the border and he/she gets away with it?
If you plug that number into an iterative algorithm that uses any ill-conditioned functions, the 1.5-inch error can grow exponentially at every step. Ensuring that computations have acceptable error margins is an extremely complex and tricky subject.
Orbital motions can be calculated in ways that don't suffer from these problems. Use of quaternion (or equivalent) methods for rotations in 3 dimensional space rather than traditional Euler angles leads to much more stable numerical results.
Only buy routine items online. For anything that requires a bit of discretion, buy it at a physical store with cash.
Almost all stores have in-store security cameras, and facial recognition software has reached the point where, unless you wear a ski mask when you shop, you can almost certainly be identified. Add to that parking lot cameras that can see your license plates and you might as well give up trying to be anonymous. To make matters worse, as people buy more and more online, brick-and-mortar stores are dropping like flies. Just try to find that book you want to buy at a major bookstore near you. Wait, what major bookstore near you? It's even harder to find all but the most popular CDs, DVDs, BluRays etc., except online. In another generation it will probably be absolutely impossible to buy anything anonymously. Some countries have even gone cashless, so for them, it's already impossible.
Slashdot Mirror
He was arrested in Spain for running a business in Costa Rica. How exactly does the US have even the slightest jurisdiction to prosecute him?
Most likely some of his customers where American. That's how it usually works. People have also been arrested and convicted in the U.S. for running offshore Internet casinos that took bets from Americans. A marijuana seller in Canada was sentenced to 5 years in a U.S. prison because some of his customers were American. The moral of the story: if you want to run a business that violates U.S. law, don't do business with Americans!
Next, ship a bicycle fender to a Houston, Texas, address. The law says you pay a higher tax rate if there is a public bus stop on your block. What tax rate do you charge?
Are you sure that's sales tax and not property tax? That doesn't make sense. If I'm in Houston and I go into a McDonald's and buy a milkshake, will the cashier ask me if there's a bus stop on the street where I live and if so charge me a higher rate of tax on that milkshake? Or does it only apply to bicycle fenders?
I don't know why this post was modded "Troll", when it was clearly meant to be Funny!
The Supreme Court has ruled that a suspect cannot be compelled to provide the combination to a lock, so I don't see how this is significantly different.
Do you have a citation for that? I'm not saying you're wrong, I've just never heard of this case and I would be very interested in looking it up and reading the decision.
Does this require that service providers retain that information, or does it just require that they turn it over if they have it? The law looks pretty broad, covering not only ISPs but any "remote computing service". Does that mean that anonymous services can no longer be offered? Does it require ISPs to retain logs of IP address assignments permanently?
Why does it have to be either "left wing" or "right wing" books that win? Why not just choose good books, regardless of politics? I think a feature of some of the best books written is the politics is left up to the reader. Is the Lord of the Rings left-wing or right-wing? I've seen commentaries taking both positions.
Heres my logic. It may be messed up but....
If a homeowner can own guns, not lock them up and then they get taken and used in a crime, the homeowner can be held accountable.
If a hacking company has exploits, doesnt lock them up properly, they get taken and used in a crime, can the hacking company be held responsible?
A better gun analogy would be you design a gun which can be manufactured on a 3D printer and leave the plans for the gun unprotected on your server. Someone downloads the plans, makes the gun on their 3D printer and uses the gun to commit a crime. Can the designer who didn't protect the plans adequately be held liable? I really don't know one way or the other, but I think it's a better analogy.
If I'm not mistaken, the LHC has been publicly funded, so these data should have been public to start with. Anything else is bs.
It's standard practice in experimental particle physics to give those who put the time and effort into designing, building, and running the experiment the first chance to analyze the data and publish results. After that, it's not unusual to release the raw data publicly. Otherwise, there'd really be no incentive to do the work, since someone else could swoop in and publish results without having contributed to producing the data.
Not true. Saying "all passengers are on board" when there are zero passengers is a vacuously true statement, but a vacuously true statement is still true.
You're deliberately misstating what he said. What he said is that as long as companies continue to create devices designed to defeat LEO, we're setting ourselves up to lose horribly. It's much better to design a legal system that allows both devices and society a reasonable level of security.
But this very statement seems to suggest a belief that in order for a society to be secure, the devices can't be. What is a "reasonable level of security" for a device? The maximum technology allows, or something else?
It feels like we're coming to a head here with regards to the government and technology. At some point, we will have to find a reasonable solution to the problem of something which is strong enough for us, but in some way allows the government (with an appropriate warrant) to access data.
This statement seems to be based on a common misinterpretation of what a warrant is. Search warrants allow the police to search for things, but they do not necessarily guarantee that they will find what they're looking for, and most importantly, the existence of warrants does NOT incur an obligation on the public to live their day-to-day lives in such a way that future searches (with warrants) will be successful. Requiring computer users to use weakened or backdoored software for the simple reason that a warrant might be issued at some future time turns the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution entirely on its head
Does your phone have to be visible to the officer, or can they now search your car without a warrant to see if you've hidden a phone in it?
The problem is the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee the right of the people to possess any and all armaments. Try storing nuclear weapons in your basement, for example. I think the 1st Amendment provides much greater protection from laws such as this. Software, and specifically source code, has been classified as protected speech by some courts, so encryption software might receive some protection on those grounds.
Apple can't force the FBI to divulge security weaknesses it found any more than the FBI can force Apple to break into phones for them.
I think we can all agree that consumption of that intellectual property without consent is theft
No, it's not theft, it's copyright violation. There's no good reason to confuse the two concepts.
Wrong again. "Consumption of intellectual property without consent" isn't copyright violation. Copying intellectual property without consent is. Or to be more precise: copying copyrighted material without consent is copyright violation.
Seeking out criminal actions is, indeed, illegal in most states.
Citation please?
It's not an issue of morality; it's an issue of legality. Prostitution is illegal in most states.
Vigilantism is illegal in most states too. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Vigilantism is when people take the law into their own hands and try to punish people themselves. All this guy is doing is gathering evidence and turning it over to the police. That's not illegal.
... to force your morality unto everyone else. Of course he's proud of his "successes."
It's not an issue of morality; it's an issue of legality. Prostitution is illegal in most states. If you disagree with the law, you can write to your state representative and suggest he/she vote to change the law. That doesn't mean you get to disobey it. This drone operator was not breaking any laws. The people he caught were.
Although obesity may seem like a problem in developed countries, the fact that there are more obese people than underweight people in the world means that starvation is much less of a problem than it used to be. We now have enough food to feed the world. This is a good thing. Better to be a bit chubby than die of starvation which in some parts of the world, people used to do.
This proposed law gets it half right. I'd have no problem with a law that prohibited using electronic devices while crossing streets. But there is no reason to prohibit such activity while walking on public sidewalks. Yes, you might run the risk of bumping into somebody, and if you walk so carelessly as to do that, you might reasonably be charged with creating a public nuisance, but that sort of careless walking doesn't pose nearly the same danger as crossing roads while distracted, and it is absurd to put them in the same category. Extending jaywalking laws to cover walking on the sidewalk goes way too far in restricting people's freedoms. Remember, texting or talking on a cellphone is a means of communication, and communication is an essential component of the First Amendment. Therefore, restrictions on communication should be imposed only when necessary and then such restrictions should be narrowly tailored to accomplish those objectives.
That's the problem you have with this? The problem that I have is that someone is being accused of something he supposedly did outside the U.S. but is being forcibly brought to the U.S.
That's called extradition, and extradition treaties have existed for hundreds of years. It's nothing new. Would you rather live in a world with no extradition treaties, where all a criminal had to do was make it across the border, or launch his attacks from the other side of the border and he/she gets away with it?
If you plug that number into an iterative algorithm that uses any ill-conditioned functions, the 1.5-inch error can grow exponentially at every step. Ensuring that computations have acceptable error margins is an extremely complex and tricky subject.
Orbital motions can be calculated in ways that don't suffer from these problems. Use of quaternion (or equivalent) methods for rotations in 3 dimensional space rather than traditional Euler angles leads to much more stable numerical results.
What idiots are using their real names and putting in valid contact info?
The article talks about NSA surveillance. You really think a fake name is going to fool the NSA???
Please cite as I am unaware that any county has figured out how to go fully cashless.
Sweden is almost cashless now, and plans to be fully cashless in the next few years. There are others on the way, too.
Only buy routine items online. For anything that requires a bit of discretion, buy it at a physical store with cash.
Almost all stores have in-store security cameras, and facial recognition software has reached the point where, unless you wear a ski mask when you shop, you can almost certainly be identified. Add to that parking lot cameras that can see your license plates and you might as well give up trying to be anonymous. To make matters worse, as people buy more and more online, brick-and-mortar stores are dropping like flies. Just try to find that book you want to buy at a major bookstore near you. Wait, what major bookstore near you? It's even harder to find all but the most popular CDs, DVDs, BluRays etc., except online. In another generation it will probably be absolutely impossible to buy anything anonymously. Some countries have even gone cashless, so for them, it's already impossible.